When rock legend Paul McCartney came to Israel in 2008, he was, at least to some extent, taking his life in his hands. Not because of Israel's sometimes precarious security situation, but because he was threatened by BDS (boycott, divest, and sanction) anti-Israel groups. I got death threats, but I'm coming anyway, the singer was quoted as saying by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs researcher Adam Shay.

I got explicit death threats, but I have no intention of surrendering. I refuse to cancel my performances in Israel, Shay quoted McCartney as saying.

George martin did write a few piano and orchestral bits here. He was a great addition musically as well as sonically. But he certainly did not write the music. There are quite a few books out there if you want to better understand what happened. Geoff Emerick’s book is very informative. He was the recordig engineer.

“Either you are 100% pure, or you are the enemy. That’s why I don’t think there will be any more GOP presidents.”

That’s true. Contrast with the democrats, who can get coal producing states to vote for 0bama. They can get blacks to vote for him, even though he wants to open the floodgates to cheap immigrant labor that will keep them forever unemployed. They can get industrial union members and environmental kooks who hate all things industrial to vote for 0bama.

As you say, conservatives’ constant quest for “ideological purity” will keep the GOP out of the White House.

Not to say we should just accept anyone as a candidate (like the last two). But you can’t require your candidate to be as perfect as Jesus and spit on anyone who isn’t and expect to ever hold office.

He made a very rude and unnecessary comment at the Whitehouse when Obama was giving him some award. Something to the effect of “Nice to have a President who’s seen the indice of a library.” It was a very low-class jab at Bush (who’s wife, ironically, was a librarian)

22
posted on 07/10/2013 10:16:59 AM PDT
by JaguarXKE
(1973: Reporters investigate All the President's Men. 2013: Reporters ARE all the President's men)

In the Playboy interview shortly before his murder, Lennon gives an example of their collaboration on lyrics. Paul wrote the line “we can work it out” and he wrote the bridging segment “life is very short and there’s no time....” McCartney was the optimist, Lennon the pessimist. Just compare the Christmas songs they each did in their post-Beatles careers. One is as light and fluffy as can be and the other is the darkest Christmas song ever written. Someone who worked them both in their solo careers in the ‘70s said they couldn’t have been more different as people.

The synergy they worked out together was definitely amazing, balancing out the light and the dark side to create fun songs that still had emotional complexity and resonance. But it’s easy to understand why there was tension there and why each of them might have felt that working together was holding them back from what they really wanted to do.

Nowadays I think popular artists are less wary to walk away from a successful formula to do something different. Maybe because things are more competitive than ever and finding success a second time through a different avenue is clearly unlikely. In the past you had George Lucas cutting the Star Wars movies from 6 films to 3 because he was tired of it and wanted to do other things. You had Christopher Reeve trying hard to prove himself as an actor outside of the Superman films. And you had Shelley Long and David Caruso leaving TV shows at the height of their popularity to try for movie careers. Now we have neverending sequels to any popular movie and actors who are willing to sign on for life to play any superhero character.

It seems like commercial success is more valued than ever in artistic endeavors. Maybe it’s because the profits have just become too big to ignore, especially now that home and digital distribution has shown that a successful project can live on for decades and continue delivering royalties, far beyond what anyone thought they ever could 25 years ago.

26
posted on 07/10/2013 10:24:28 AM PDT
by JediJones
(Gridlock means taking credit for stuff that automatically happens while you do nothing)

Obama didn’t persuade coal producing states to vote for him in spite of his agenda. He lied to them.

Obama didn’t convince black voters of the need for amnesty for illegal hispanics, the need for abortion on demand in black neighborhoods, the need for homosexuality pushed in our military and schools. He lied to them.

1. You don’t know who wrote what if you weren’t in the room when it was written.
2. According to their own propaganda, even though the credits said Lennon/McCartney, they didn’t have a composing and songwriting collaboration - Lennon wrote some songs, McCartney others. The Lennon/McCartney was a convenience of publishing.
3. Neither of them could read music, and Lennon was an extremely mediocre musician. The change in the music after George Martin came on board is so huge that it obviously goes way beyond “arranging”.
4. The banality and mediocrity of their post Beatles music would lead a reasonable person with knowledge of music and the music business to question their capacity as composers.

Not at all - and surprised to see your use of the word - a leftover from male chauvinist times used to discredit any woman who was winning an argument.
I was simply listing the reasons that support my initial statement. When your response is to attempt to dismiss them on the completely specious charge that I am “touchy” - I conclude that you cannot marshal a cogent answer.

Regardless of whatever liberal positions he may have otherwise, I salute him for not cowing to the BDS bullies. Liberals who are so “tolerant” of everything from gays to drugs to abortion can be the most intolerant people in the world if an artist (or a politician) dares to go against their will. BDS is the ultimate hypocrisy.

38
posted on 07/10/2013 1:31:02 PM PDT
by Sender
(It's never too late to be what you might have been.)

Please explain why it is being “touchy” to list four items that support a thesis, and why that makes one a “pompous ass” -
I would think that the pompous ass is the person who when they cannot come up with an answer, resorts to name-calling.

Don’t pretend that you don’t understand what I wrote.
Instead of answering the points that I raised, you laughed and labeled me “touchy”. I said that I was surprised to see you use a device left over from another era by male chauvinists. Thar your name indicates the strong probability that you are a woman makes your use of that device - laughter, a dismissive reference to emotionalism - even more surprising.

But it remains that now on two occasions you chose to use dismissive tactics rather than attempt to reply. You can disdain me all you wish - you’re only revealing your own limitations when all you can come up with is one word and lol.

He should be getting death threads, but not for writing and singing ‘Hey Jude’ and ‘Maybe I’m Amazed’, but for provoking so many banal, pedestrian and Captain Obvious comments in the blogosphere. As if we didn’t know, as if we haven’t heard it all more times than Paul has sung ‘Hey Jude’.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.